Amendment to Zoning Re-write for Champlain College

January 5, 2008

Good planning and true collaboration with neighborhood residents is much needed regarding the expansion of Champlain College. The College is expanding, rightly so, as their programs are proving to be very successful. You must congratulate them on their success as I do. We currently have hired 3 interns from Champlain College in our business and have hired a recent graduate full-time. I am very happy with all of them.

The historic and pretty neighborhood in which Champlain College resides in is a highly valued asset of the Hill Section residents and Champlain College. So much so, that in 1994 the residents, in conjunction with the City and Champlain College, prepared a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) that would control the expansion of the College into the neighborhoods while allowing proper institutional use of its current property holdings. The 1994 MOU also established buffer areas between the school and the residential properties. This MOU is good for twenty years–until 2014. There are Memorandums of Understanding between the City and UVM and the City and Fletcher Allen also.

In most instances Memorandums of Understanding prove to be a good tool—that is, when the City Administration and the majority of the City Council choose to enforce them, or interpret them as originally intended for that matter. Notice that I used the words “City Administration” and “City Council” and I did NOT use the word “residents.” The Town/Gown problem is an age-old problem with institutions in cities across the USA. Institutions seem to have piercing and far reaching tentacles that have to be very closely monitored.

Just recently Champlain College asked the Mayor to change the zoning from Low Density Residential to Institutional on a block on South Willard Street, south of Maple Street. Champlain said the reason they needed this change was so they could do restoration work on the Cannon property. Funny, you do not need to change the zoning in order to do repairs on a building. However, Champlain College has a new 2007 Master Plan, which has yet to be reviewed and approved by the Burlington Planning Commission, or the City Council, or the residents of Ward 6. The 2007 Master Plan calls for the Cannon property to be a new Admissions building and Welcome Center. Hmm… why does Champlain College have to change the zoning on an entire block to change the use of only one building? The Master Plan does call for many changes in this block—the addition of new buildings for offices and dormitories. If they got this zoning change they could start these buildings without having to go through the planning process with the City. Additionally, this zoning change will permit uses and density that is not allowed by the MOU. It also removes the buffer between the residents and the college campus, called for in the MOU. Regarding the Cannon property, the MOU permitted the front part of the property to be used as housing and the rear as passive green space. I continue to fail to see how the City Administration can claim that the zoning change was to fulfill the requirements of the MOU.

During Champlain’s master planning process, which included a few neighbors, all of which had a difficult time attending all of the meetings because they were held during working hours, Champlain College told the “neighbor committee members” that they would change the deed on the Cannon Property to specify that the rear half or so of the property would remain in passive green space in perpetuity.

At the beginning of the City Council’s zoning rewrite process the City Administration proposed an amendment to change the zoning from the current Low Density Residential to Institutional for the entire west-side block of South Willard between Maple and Tower Terrace, as Champlain College requested–this included a private residence. The Administration stated the reason for this amendment was to support the 1994 MOU. Many residents, spoke against the amendment at the public forum at several City Council meetings, met with the Mayor and Joe McNeil, and spoke to Ken Schatz at our Ward 6 NPA meeting, and wrote letters to the Mayor and the City Council. We explained that this amendment clearly did not fulfill any requirements of the 1994 MOU, it allowed for uses and density that were not allowed in the MOU, and that the amendment changed the zoning of a private residence. Plus, the MOU required the that the rear of the Cannon property remain as passive green space for the duration of the MOU time period and Champlain College had publicly promised in it master planning process that it would keep the rear of the Cannon property as passive green space, by putting a codicil onto the deed in perpetuity, but the amendment ignored this.

In spite of this tremendous effort of the residents, the City Administration changed the amendment, slightly. The second iteration of the amendment shortened the block, stopping at the private residence. The resolution section of the amendment, which describes the purpose of the amendment, included the provision of green space on the Cannon property, but the amendment itself did not. At least we gained a little lip service about the green space if not any commitments.

Again, we continued to speak at the public forums at the City Council meetings. We had a little more success this time. Ed Adrian (City Councilor- Ward 1) got the City Attorney’s office to ask for a formal, legal easement of green space on the Cannon property. Champlain College returned with a 25 year easement offer. What happened to their promise to the neighbors during the master planning process of having a green space codicil on the deed in perpetuity? Ed Adrian got the City Council to ask Champlain for a 50 year easement. As it stands now, the City Council voted in favor of this amendment by a narrow margin with the caveat that Champlain will put a 50 year easement of green space on the Cannon property deed. It is not forever, but we are supposed to be happy because 50 years is longer than the remaining six years of the 1994 MOU (1994+20 14-2008=6) and longer than Champlain College’s initial offer to the City Council. We are all told not to mind the 50 year limit.

During this time, Champlain College and the City Administration kept pushing the City Council to make this zoning change ostensibly to support the Memorandum of Understanding. Champlain College also kept stating that it deserved the amendment, as they have been abiding by the MOU. Meanwhile, as we found out later, Champlain College was secretly purchasing a private residence at 390 Maple Street, in direct and unquestionable violation of the 1994 Memorandum of Understanding! What did the City Administration do to enforce the 1994 MOU when it found out Champlain College violated the 1994 MOU and illegally purchased 390 Maple Street? Did the City Administration penalize Champlain College for violating the 1994 MOU? No, The City Administration gave Champlain College a building permit to make improvements to 390 Maple Street even though Champlain College was not supposed to own 390 Maple Street.

In addition to everything else, the 1994 Memorandum of Understanding called for a zoning change of the properties along Jackson Court and Harrington Terrace from Institutional to Low Density Residential. As long as the City Administration has had the time to propose this amendment to the Zoning Rewrite for the changes Champlain College wanted, why did the City Administration not look out just as much for the residents and voters? I have pushed the City Administration and the City Council over and over again for a mutual change of zoning for these residents. My pleas fell on deaf ears.

The City Administration and many City Councilors have violated the public trust by passing this amendment favoring Champlain College against the wishes of the voters and tax payers under the false claim that to do so is to fulfill the City’s obligations in the 1994 Memorandum of Understanding. What happened here should not be considered a one time occurrence or be a phenomena of working with institutions. It could happen with anything and should be a warning to all of us. Not only do you have to watch the federal government, but local government requires careful vigilance and participation by each of us. I’d be happy to answer any questions about the 1994 Memorandum of Understanding, or discuss the process we went through, the effect of the expansion of Champlain College, or open Burlington City government in general.

Your City of Burlington Government Watchdog,

Susan Dorn

Citizens for a Livable City